Setting a ref to a member field in C#

Setting a ref to a member field in C# - c#

I'd like to assign a reference to a member field. But I obviously do not understand this part of C# very well, because I failed :-) So, here's my code:
public class End {
public string parameter;
public End(ref string parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", parameter);
}
public void Init() {
this.parameter = "success";
}
}
class MainClass {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
string s = "failed";
End e = new End(ref s);
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s);
}
}
Output is:
Inside: failed
After: failed
How do I get "success" on the console?
Thanks in advance,
dijxtra

As others have pointed out, you cannot store a reference to a variable in a field in C#, or indeed, any CLR language.
Of course you can capture a reference to a class instance that contains a variable easily enough:
sealed class MyRef<T>
{
public T Value { get; set; }
}
public class End
{
public MyRef<string> parameter;
public End(MyRef<string> parameter)
{
this.parameter = parameter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", parameter.Value);
}
public void Init()
{
this.parameter.Value = "success";
}
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Main()
{
MyRef<string> s = new MyRef<string>();
s.Value = "failed";
End e = new End(s);
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s.Value);
}
}
Easy peasy.

There are really two issues here.
One, as the other posters have said, you can't strictly do what you're looking to do (as you may be able to with C and the like). However - the behavior and intent are still readily workable in C# - you just have to do it the C# way.
The other issue is your unfortunate attempt to try and use strings - which are, as one of the other posters mentioned - immutable - and by definition get copied around.
So, having said that, your code can easily be converted to this, which I think does do what you want:
public class End
{
public StringBuilder parameter;
public End(StringBuilder parameter)
{
this.parameter = parameter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", parameter);
}
public void Init()
{
this.parameter.Clear();
this.parameter.Append("success");
}
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder("failed");
End e = new End(s);
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s);
}
}

It sounds like what you're trying to do here is make a field a reference to another storage location. Essentially having a ref field in the same way you have a ref parameter. This is not possible in C#.
One of the main issues with doing this is that in order to be verifiable the CLR (and C#) must be able to prove the object containing the field won't live longer than the location it points to. This is typically impossible as objects live on the heap and a ref can easily point into the stack. These two places have very different lifetime semantics (heap typically being longer than the stack) and hence a ref between can't be proven to be valid.

If you don't want to introduce another class like MyRef or StringBuilder because your string is already a property in an existing class you can use a Func and Action to achieve the result you are looking for.
public class End {
private readonly Func<string> getter;
private readonly Action<string> setter;
public End(Func<string> getter, Action<string> setter) {
this.getter = getter;
this.setter = setter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", getter());
}
public void Init() {
setter("success");
}
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
string s = "failed";
End e = new End(() => s, (x) => {s = x; });
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s);
}
}
And if you want to simplify the calling side further (at the expense of some run-time) you can use a method like the one below to turn (some) getters into setters.
/// <summary>
/// Convert a lambda expression for a getter into a setter
/// </summary>
public static Action<T, U> GetSetter<T,U>(Expression<Func<T, U>> expression)
{
var memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
var property = (PropertyInfo)memberExpression.Member;
var setMethod = property.GetSetMethod();
var parameterT = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "x");
var parameterU = Expression.Parameter(typeof(U), "y");
var newExpression =
Expression.Lambda<Action<T, U>>(
Expression.Call(parameterT, setMethod, parameterU),
parameterT,
parameterU
);
return newExpression.Compile();
}

At this line:
this.parameter = parameter;
...you copy the method parameter to the class member parameter. Then, in Init() you are assigning the value "success", again, to the class member parameter. In your Console.Writeline, then, you are writing the value of the method parameter, "failed", because you never actually modify the method parameter.
What you are trying to do - the way you are trying to do it - is not possible, I believe in C#. I wouldn't try passing a string with the ref modifier.

As answered by JaredPar, you can't.
But the problem is partly that string is immutable. Change your parameter to be of class Basket { public string status; } and your code would basically work. No need for the ref keyword, just change parameter.status.
And the other option is of course Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", e.parameter);. Do wrap parameter in a (write-only) property.

Related

"No Operation" Delegate in c#

I've a generic class like
public class Foo<T> where T : Delegate {
private T nop;
public Foo(T nop) {
this.nop = nop;
}
public T BuildDelegateChain() {
if(chainAvailable) {
return Delegate.Combine(...) as T;
} else {
return nop;
}
}
....
}
So for each instance I have to call:
Foo<Action<int>> foo = new Foo<Action<int>>( _ =>{});
Foo<Action<int,int>> foo = new Foo<Action<int,int>>( (_,__) =>{});
Is there a way to get a default "No Operation" delegate matching the type T?
I'm looking for something to replace the constructor to a constructor without any argument. Something like:
...
public Foo() {
this.nop = Delegate.CreateNop(typeof(T));
}
...

You can create a no-op delegate dynamically using the Expression class. For delegates with return types, the no-op would have to return default(TReturn). Otherwise it just needs to be an empty block. We'll then cache the delegate so reflection only happens once.
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
public static class DelegateHelper<T> where T : Delegate
{
public static T NoOp { get; } = BuildNoOpDelegate();
private static T BuildNoOpDelegate()
{
var invoke = typeof(T).GetMethod(nameof(Action.Invoke));
var paramTypes = invoke.GetParameters().Select(c => c.ParameterType);
// return default(TReturn) or default(Void)
var body = Expression.Default(invoke.ReturnType);
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<T>(
body,
paramTypes.Select(Expression.Parameter)
);
return lambda.Compile();
}
}
And then to use it:
public class Foo<T> where T : Delegate {
private T nop;
public Foo() {
nop = DelegateHelper<T>.NoOp;
}
}
Interestingly, this also works for delegates with out/ref parameters. In the case of out we don't need to do anything special to set the values before the method exits (which would be required with straight C#)--they keep their default values. For example, suppose a delegate with the following signature:
public delegate int MyDelegate(out int x, ref string y);
This code will compile and execute successfully:
var nop = DelegateHelper<MyDelegate>.NoOp;
string val = "hello";
int ret = nop(out int i, ref val);
Console.WriteLine(ret); // prints "0"
Console.WriteLine(i); // prints "0"
Console.WriteLine(val); // unchanged, prints "hello"
Now this is all probably a bit overkill, but it should answer your question. Alternatively you could just treat null as your no-op sentinel value and use whatever?.Invoke() instead.

Obtaining name of property without passing it in via reflection?

I'm trying to do something like this:
public static class Validate
{
public static void AgainstNull(string str)
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(str))
{
// how do I know the property name in the calling code?
throw new ArgumentNullException("property name from caller");
}
}
}
So that I can use a pattern similar to this in my code base:
public void Foo(string bar)
{
Validate.AgainstNull(bar);
// other processing here
}
How do I know the name of the property which was passed in from the calling code inside of my validate method?

As Chris Sinclair mentioned, you can use LINQ expression, here is an example of such code:
public static class Validate
{
public static void AgainstNull(System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<Func<string>> expr)
{
var str = expr.Compile().Invoke();
if (str == null)
{
string name = (expr.Body as System.Linq.Expressions.MemberExpression).Member.Name;
throw new ArgumentNullException(name);
}
}
}

It's not directly possible, but there's a technique/hack that allows the retrieval of the parameter names by making them members of an anonymous type.
Based on your example, this is not a fit. It introduces unnecessary ambiguity and requires weakly typed method signature(s). It's also measurably slower than just passing the string name of the parameter in question.
Again, don't use this for the stated purpose.
Code
void Main()
{
Foo( "hello", "world", 123, false );
}
private static void Foo( string bar, string baz, int abc, bool xyz )
{
Evaluate( new { bar, baz, abc, xyz } );
}
private static void Evaluate( object o )
{
var properties = System.ComponentModel.TypeDescriptor.GetProperties( o );
foreach( System.ComponentModel.PropertyDescriptor propertyDescriptor in properties )
{
var value = propertyDescriptor.GetValue( o );
Console.WriteLine( "Name: {0}, Value: {1}", propertyDescriptor.Name, value );
}
}
Output
Name: bar, Value: hello
Name: baz, Value: world
Name: abc, Value: 123
Name: xyz, Value: False
When might this pattern be appropriate?
It's worth noting that the ASP.Net MVC framework uses anonymous types extensively as a syntactic shortcut. The ComponentModel code comes straight from RouteValueDictionary.

Simple answer: you can't.
There are attributes in newer version of .NET that I thought would be helpful, but those don't look like they'd do the trick either.

You can use Expression Tree to get names of parameters
public static class Validate
{
public static void AgainstNull(string str)
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(str))
{
var parametersNames = GetParameterNames(() => AgainstNull(str));
throw new ArgumentNullException(parametersNames[0]);
}
}
private static string[] GetParameterNames(Expression<Action> expression)
{
var methodInfo = ((MethodCallExpression)expression.Body).Method;
var names = methodInfo.GetParameters().Select(p => p.Name);
return names.ToArray();
}
}
[Fact]
public void AgainstNullTest()
{
var ex = Assert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>(() => Validate.AgainstNull(string.Empty));
Assert.True(ex.Message.EndsWith("str"));
}

Simulate variadic templates in C#

Is there a well-known way for simulating the variadic template feature in C#?
For instance, I'd like to write a method that takes a lambda with an arbitrary set of parameters. Here is in pseudo code what I'd like to have:
void MyMethod<T1,T2,...,TReturn>(Fun<T1,T2, ..., TReturn> f)
{
}

C# generics are not the same as C++ templates. C++ templates are expanded compiletime and can be used recursively with variadic template arguments. The C++ template expansion is actually Turing Complete, so there is no theoretically limit to what can be done in templates.
C# generics are compiled directly, with an empty "placeholder" for the type that will be used at runtime.
To accept a lambda taking any number of arguments you would either have to generate a lot of overloads (through a code generator) or accept a LambdaExpression.

There is no varadic support for generic type arguments (on either methods or types). You will have to add lots of overloads.
varadic support is only available for arrays, via params, i.e.
void Foo(string key, params int[] values) {...}
Improtantly - how would you even refer to those various T* to write a generic method? Perhaps your best option is to take a Type[] or similar (depending on the context).

I know this is an old question, but if all you want to do is something simple like print those types out, you can do this very easily without Tuple or anything extra using 'dynamic':
private static void PrintTypes(params dynamic[] args)
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
Console.WriteLine(arg.GetType());
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
PrintTypes(1,1.0,"hello");
Console.ReadKey();
}
Will print "System.Int32" , "System.Double", "System.String"
If you want to perform some action on these things, as far as I know you have two choices. One is to trust the programmer that these types can do a compatible action, for example if you wanted to make a method to Sum any number of parameters. You could write a method like the following saying how you want to receive the result and the only prerequisite I guess would be that the + operation works between these types:
private static void AddToFirst<T>(ref T first, params dynamic[] args)
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
first += arg;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int x = 0;
AddToFirst(ref x,1,1.5,2.0,3.5,2);
Console.WriteLine(x);
double y = 0;
AddToFirst(ref y, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, 2);
Console.WriteLine(y);
Console.ReadKey();
}
With this, the output for the first line would be "9" because adding to an int, and the second line would be "10" because the .5s didn't get rounded, adding as a double. The problem with this code is if you pass some incompatible type in the list, it will have an error because the types can't get added together, and you won't see that error at compile time, only at runtime.
So, depending on your use case there might be another option which is why I said there were two choices at first. Assuming you know the choices for the possible types, you could make an interface or abstract class and make all of those types implement the interface. For example, the following. Sorry this is a bit crazy. And it can probably be simplfied.
public interface Applyable<T>
{
void Apply(T input);
T GetValue();
}
public abstract class Convertable<T>
{
public dynamic value { get; set; }
public Convertable(dynamic value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public abstract T GetConvertedValue();
}
public class IntableInt : Convertable<int>, Applyable<int>
{
public IntableInt(int value) : base(value) {}
public override int GetConvertedValue()
{
return value;
}
public void Apply(int input)
{
value += input;
}
public int GetValue()
{
return value;
}
}
public class IntableDouble : Convertable<int>
{
public IntableDouble(double value) : base(value) {}
public override int GetConvertedValue()
{
return (int) value;
}
}
public class IntableString : Convertable<int>
{
public IntableString(string value) : base(value) {}
public override int GetConvertedValue()
{
// If it can't be parsed return zero
int result;
return int.TryParse(value, out result) ? result : 0;
}
}
private static void ApplyToFirst<TResult>(ref Applyable<TResult> first, params Convertable<TResult>[] args)
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
first.Apply(arg.GetConvertedValue());
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Applyable<int> result = new IntableInt(0);
IntableInt myInt = new IntableInt(1);
IntableDouble myDouble1 = new IntableDouble(1.5);
IntableDouble myDouble2 = new IntableDouble(2.0);
IntableDouble myDouble3 = new IntableDouble(3.5);
IntableString myString = new IntableString("2");
ApplyToFirst(ref result, myInt, myDouble1, myDouble2, myDouble3, myString);
Console.WriteLine(result.GetValue());
Console.ReadKey();
}
Will output "9" the same as the original Int code, except the only values you can actually pass in as parameters are things that you actually have defined and you know will work and not cause any errors. Of course, you would have to make new classes i.e. DoubleableInt , DoubleableString, etc.. in order to re-create the 2nd result of 10. But this is just an example, so you wouldn't even be trying to add things at all depending on what code you are writing and you would just start out with the implementation that served you the best.
Hopefully someone can improve on what I wrote here or use it to see how this can be done in C#.

Another alternative besides those mentioned above is to use Tuple<,> and reflection, for example:
class PrintVariadic<T>
{
public T Value { get; set; }
public void Print()
{
InnerPrint(Value);
}
static void InnerPrint<Tn>(Tn t)
{
var type = t.GetType();
if (type.IsGenericType && type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(Tuple<,>))
{
var i1 = type.GetProperty("Item1").GetValue(t, new object[]{});
var i2 = type.GetProperty("Item2").GetValue(t, new object[]{ });
InnerPrint(i1);
InnerPrint(i2);
return;
}
Console.WriteLine(t.GetType());
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var v = new PrintVariadic<Tuple<
int, Tuple<
string, Tuple<
double,
long>>>>();
v.Value = Tuple.Create(
1, Tuple.Create(
"s", Tuple.Create(
4.0,
4L)));
v.Print();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}

I don't necessarily know if there's a name for this pattern, but I arrived at the following formulation for a recursive generic interface that allows an unlimited amount of values to be passed in, with the returned type retaining type information for all passed values.
public interface ITraversalRoot<TRoot>
{
ITraversalSpecification<TRoot> Specify();
}
public interface ITraverser<TRoot, TCurrent>: ITraversalRoot<TRoot>
{
IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TInclude, TCurrent, ITraverser<TRoot, TCurrent>> AndInclude<TInclude>(Expression<Func<TCurrent, TInclude>> path);
}
public interface IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TDerived, TParent, out TParentTraverser> : ITraverser<TRoot, TParent>
{
IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TInclude, TDerived, IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TDerived, TParent, TParentTraverser>> FromWhichInclude<TInclude>(Expression<Func<TDerived, TInclude>> path);
TParentTraverser ThenBackToParent();
}
There's no casting or "cheating" of the type system involved here: you can keep stacking on more values and the inferred return type keeps storing more and more information. Here is what the usage looks like:
var spec = Traversal
.StartFrom<VirtualMachine>() // ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>
.AndInclude(vm => vm.EnvironmentBrowser) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, EnvironmentBrowser, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>
.AndInclude(vm => vm.Datastore) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Datastore, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>
.FromWhichInclude(ds => ds.Browser) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, HostDatastoreBrowser, Datastore, IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Datastore, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>>
.FromWhichInclude(br => br.Mountpoints) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Mountpoint, HostDatastoreBrowser, IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, HostDatastoreBrowser, Datastore, IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Datastore, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>>>
.Specify(); // ITraversalSpecification<VirtualMachine>
As you can see the type signature becomes basically unreadable near after a few chained calls, but this is fine so long as type inference works and suggests the right type to the user.
In my example I am dealing with Funcs arguments, but you could presumably adapt this code to deal with arguments of arbitrary type.

For a simulation you can say:
void MyMethod<TSource, TResult>(Func<TSource, TResult> f) where TSource : Tparams {
where Tparams to be a variadic arguments implementation class. However, the framework does not provide an out-of-box stuff to do that, Action, Func, Tuple, etc., are all have limited length of their signatures. The only thing I can think of is to apply the CRTP .. in a way I've not find somebody blogged. Here's my implementation:
*: Thank #SLaks for mentioning Tuple<T1, ..., T7, TRest> also works in a recursive way. I noticed it's recursive on the constructor and the factory method instead of its class definition; and do a runtime type checking of the last argument of type TRest is required to be a ITupleInternal; and this works a bit differently.
Code
using System;
namespace VariadicGenerics {
public interface INode {
INode Next {
get;
}
}
public interface INode<R>:INode {
R Value {
get; set;
}
}
public abstract class Tparams {
public static C<TValue> V<TValue>(TValue x) {
return new T<TValue>(x);
}
}
public class T<P>:C<P> {
public T(P x) : base(x) {
}
}
public abstract class C<R>:Tparams, INode<R> {
public class T<P>:C<T<P>>, INode<P> {
public T(C<R> node, P x) {
if(node is R) {
Next=(R)(node as object);
}
else {
Next=(node as INode<R>).Value;
}
Value=x;
}
public T() {
if(Extensions.TypeIs(typeof(R), typeof(C<>.T<>))) {
Next=(R)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(R));
}
}
public R Next {
private set;
get;
}
public P Value {
get; set;
}
INode INode.Next {
get {
return this.Next as INode;
}
}
}
public new T<TValue> V<TValue>(TValue x) {
return new T<TValue>(this, x);
}
public int GetLength() {
return m_expandedArguments.Length;
}
public C(R x) {
(this as INode<R>).Value=x;
}
C() {
}
static C() {
m_expandedArguments=Extensions.GetExpandedGenericArguments(typeof(R));
}
// demonstration of non-recursive traversal
public INode this[int index] {
get {
var count = m_expandedArguments.Length;
for(INode node = this; null!=node; node=node.Next) {
if(--count==index) {
return node;
}
}
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("index");
}
}
R INode<R>.Value {
get; set;
}
INode INode.Next {
get {
return null;
}
}
static readonly Type[] m_expandedArguments;
}
}
Note the type parameter for the inherited class C<> in the declaration of
public class T<P>:C<T<P>>, INode<P> {
is T<P>, and the class T<P> is nested so that you can do some crazy things such as:
Test
[Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestClass]
public class TestClass {
void MyMethod<TSource, TResult>(Func<TSource, TResult> f) where TSource : Tparams {
T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.
T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>
crazy = Tparams
// trying to change any value to not match the
// declaring type makes the compilation fail
.V((byte)1).V('2').V(4u).V(8L)
.V((byte)1).V('2').V(8L).V(4u)
.V((byte)1).V(8L).V('2').V(4u)
.V(8L).V((byte)1).V('2').V(4u)
.V(8L).V((byte)1).V(4u).V('2')
.V((byte)1).V(8L).V(4u).V('2')
.V((byte)1).V(4u).V(8L).V('2')
.V((byte)1).V(4u).V('2').V(8L)
.V(4u).V((byte)1).V('2').V(8L)
.V(4u).V((byte)1).V(8L).V('2')
.V(4u).V(8L).V((byte)1).V('2')
.V(8L).V(4u).V((byte)1).V('2')
.V(8L).V(4u).V('9').V((byte)1)
.V(4u).V(8L).V('2').V((byte)1)
.V(4u).V('2').V(8L).V((byte)1)
.V(4u).V('2').V((byte)1).V(8L)
.V('2').V(4u).V((byte)1).V(8L)
.V('2').V(4u).V(8L).V((byte)1)
.V('2').V(8L).V(4u).V((byte)1)
.V(8L).V('2').V(4u).V((byte)1)
.V(8L).V('2').V((byte)1).V(4u)
.V('2').V(8L).V((byte)1).V(4u)
.V('2').V((byte)1).V(8L).V(4u)
.V('7').V((byte)1).V(4u).V(8L);
var args = crazy as TSource;
if(null!=args) {
f(args);
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod() {
Func<
T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.
T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>, String>
f = args => {
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("Length={0}", args.GetLength()));
// print fourth value from the last
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("value={0}", args.Next.Next.Next.Value));
args.Next.Next.Next.Value='x';
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("value={0}", args.Next.Next.Next.Value));
return "test";
};
MyMethod(f);
}
}
Another thing to note is we have two classes named T, the non-nested T:
public class T<P>:C<P> {
is just for the consistency of usage, and I made class C abstract to not directly being newed.
The Code part above needs to expand ther generic argument to calculate about their length, here are two extension methods it used:
Code(extensions)
using System.Diagnostics;
using System;
namespace VariadicGenerics {
[DebuggerStepThrough]
public static class Extensions {
public static readonly Type VariadicType = typeof(C<>.T<>);
public static bool TypeIs(this Type x, Type d) {
if(null==d) {
return false;
}
for(var c = x; null!=c; c=c.BaseType) {
var a = c.GetInterfaces();
for(var i = a.Length; i-->=0;) {
var t = i<0 ? c : a[i];
if(t==d||t.IsGenericType&&t.GetGenericTypeDefinition()==d) {
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
public static Type[] GetExpandedGenericArguments(this Type t) {
var expanded = new Type[] { };
for(var skip = 1; t.TypeIs(VariadicType) ? true : skip-->0;) {
var args = skip>0 ? t.GetGenericArguments() : new[] { t };
if(args.Length>0) {
var length = args.Length-skip;
var temp = new Type[length+expanded.Length];
Array.Copy(args, skip, temp, 0, length);
Array.Copy(expanded, 0, temp, length, expanded.Length);
expanded=temp;
t=args[0];
}
}
return expanded;
}
}
}
For this implementation, I choosed not to break the compile-time type checking, so we do not have a constructor or a factory with the signature like params object[] to provide values; instead, use a fluent pattern of method V for mass object instantiation to keep type can be statically type checked as much as possible.

Class member as a first-class object

I was wondering if there is something in c# to be able to pass a member of a class to another function that will use this member to get a value. So get a value of a field determined only which one at runtime. Something like in other languages (PHP at least I think) that you can do
a.b = "something"
but also
a["b"] = "something";
edit: actually not so good an example since a string is used, sorry
For clarity an example of what I'd like to be able to do:
class A
{
int x;
int y;
}
void somethingsomething<T>(T class, SomeMagicFieldClass f)
{
dosomethingwith(somemethodthatgivesmethevalueoffield(class, f));
}
Where then I can call the method like this:
A a = new A();
somethingsomething(a, A.x); //hypothetical notation
somethingsomething(a, A.y);
I now have something similar where I do:
somethingsomething(a, "x");
somethingsomething(a, "y");
I then go find the field using introspection API (also trying GetProperty)
MemberInfo memberInfo = item.GetType().GetField(fieldName);
This works but the disadvantage is that the fields passed as a string won't get updated when "refactoring" fieldnames in visual studio, so I was thinking maybe there exists something like this in c# that would get refactored automatically when changing field names?
Thanks a lot for reading this boring question

Your example looks a lot like a LINQ key selector, in that form it would look like:
A a = new A();
somethingsomething(a, p => p.x);

You can do some nice refactor-friendly things with LINQ Expressions. Here is a snippet of utilty code I used for such occasions. It allows you to get the Name, Type and Value of a property (it won't work with fields without modifications). There's also a setter for the value.
public static void Main(string[] args) {
var test = new { Test1 = 42, Test2 = "123", Test3 = 3.14195 };
somethingSomething(test, t => t.Test1);
somethingSomething(test, t => t.Test2);
somethingSomething(test, t => t.Test3);
}
static void somethingSomething<TObj,TProperty>(TObj obj, Expression<Func<TObj,TProperty>> expr) {
var accessor = GetMemberAccessor(expr, obj);
String name = accessor.Name;
TProperty value = accessor.Value;
String typeName = accessor.Type.Name;
Console.WriteLine("{0} = {1} ({2})", name, value, typeName);
}
The output of that would be:
Test1 = 42 (Int32)
Test2 = 123 (String)
Test3 = 3.14195 (Double)
To make this work, I used the following helper function and class:
public static MemberAccessor<TReturn> GetMemberAccessor<TObj,TReturn>(Expression<Func<TObj, TReturn>> expr, TObj tar) {
var body = expr.Body;
MemberExpression memberExpression = null;
if (body is UnaryExpression) {
var ue = (UnaryExpression)body;
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)ue.Operand;
} else if (body is MemberExpression)
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)body;
else
throw new NotImplementedException("can't get MemberExpression");
String name = memberExpression.Member.Name;
return new MemberAccessor<TReturn>(tar, name);
}
public class MemberAccessor<T> {
private readonly PropertyDescriptor propertyDesc;
private readonly Object target;
public MemberAccessor(Object target, String propertyName) {
this.target = target;
this.propertyDesc = TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(target)[propertyName];
}
public String Name {
get { return propertyDesc.Name; }
}
public Type Type {
get { return propertyDesc.PropertyType; }
}
public T Value {
get { return (T)Convert.ChangeType(propertyDesc.GetValue(target), typeof(T)); }
set { propertyDesc.SetValue(target, value); }
}
}

Mr. Plunkett is correct; a dynamic type will do the job. Luckily, the .NET 4 team included a handy object called the ExpandoObject that solves that for you.

You asked how to
pass a member of a class to another
function that will use this member to
get a value
You can usedelegates for this
class A
{
public string aField;
public string aProperty{get{return "someval";}}
public string aMemberFunction(){return "someval";}
}
void get_a_value(Func<string> func)
{
string theValue = func();
}
// use it:
A a = new A();
get_a_value( () => a.aField);
get_a_value( () => a.aProperty);
get_a_value( () => a.aMemberFunction());
What you don't get this way, of course, is a separation of parameters for the memberfunction and the object you are passing.

o => o.MethodWithParameters | is it possible to use a method in a lambda without () and parameters

i have a method that takes as a parameter an expression because I need the method string name, and I don't care about the parameters of that method, is it possible to do that ?

I don't think that there is. You can however make a generic helper method that you can put in place of the parameters:
public T Any<T>(){
return default(T);
}
and you can call it like so:
YourMethod((YourClass yc) => yc.SomeMethod(Any<SomeClass>(), Any<SomeOtherClass>());

Yes, it's possible. Here is a concept proof test.
private static T RunExpression<T>(Expression<Func<T>> run )
{
var callExpression = (MethodCallExpression) run.Body;
var procedureName = callExpression.Method.Name;
Trace.WriteLine(procedureName);
foreach (var argument in callExpression.Arguments)
{
Trace.WriteLine(argument);
}
Trace.WriteLine(callExpression.Arguments.Count);
// Some really wicked stuff to assign out parameter
// Just for demonstration purposes
var outMember = (MemberExpression)callExpression.Arguments[1];
var e = Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(outMember.Expression);
var o = e.Compile().Invoke();
var prop = o.GetType().GetField("s");
prop.SetValue(o, "Hello from magic method call!");
Trace.WriteLine(run.Body);
return default(T);
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestExpressionInvocation()
{
var action = new MyActionObject();
string s = null;
RunExpression(() => action.Create(1, out s));
Assert.AreEqual("Hello from magic method call!", s);
}

The easiest way to do this doesn't even use expression trees:
void Main()
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Action(Main)));
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Func<Delegate, string>(GetNameOfMethod)));
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Func<int, short, long>(AddNumber)));
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Action<int, short>(SwallowNumber)));
}
string GetNameOfMethod(Delegate d){
return d.Method.Name;
}
long AddNumber(int x, short y){ return x+y; }
void SwallowNumber(int x, short y){}
yields:
Main
GetNameOfMethod
AddNumber
SwallowNumber
I use this to build a BDD framework on http://storyq.codeplex.com.
Click here to see the file where I do this.

You can use this method without parameters but parentheses (even empty) are required, because without them you tell the compiler to access a property of that name.

You can use something like:
(credits go to klausbyskov)
But it's less verbose.
Also you will need to provide overloads for various argument lists.
[TestClass]
public class TestExpressions
{
public class MyClass
{
public bool MyMethod(string arg)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
private static string UseExpression<T, Ta1>(Expression<Action<T,Ta1>> run)
{
return ((MethodCallExpression)run.Body).Method.Name;
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestExpressionParser()
{
Assert.AreEqual("MyMethod",
UseExpression<MyClass,string>((c,fakeString) => c.MyMethod(fakeString)));
}
}

We Keep Coding

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.

Setting a ref to a member field in C# - c#

Related

"No Operation" Delegate in c#

Obtaining name of property without passing it in via reflection?

Simulate variadic templates in C#

Class member as a first-class object

o => o.MethodWithParameters | is it possible to use a method in a lambda without () and parameters

Categories

Resources